AK, R (on application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Consequential Judgment)

Introduction

1. This is my ruling on consequential matters following the judgment on the substantive issues having been circulated and the parties having made further written submissions. Corrections to the judgment The list of issues

2. The parties had agreed an amended list of issues. On 30 April my clerk, at my direction, contacted the parties by email to ask for confirmation as to the final form of the agreed issues. The parties responded by attaching the relevant document which was the version I was working to. That is plain from the treatment of the issues in the judgment and the fact that I had asked for clarification. I subsequently copied the issues from my initial notes taken from the earlier version when I was filling in spaces left for factual and other material in the draft judgment. This was the subject of a suggested correction to the circulated draft which I have accepted. The factual background

3. I had considered the authorities and annotated Mr Kett’s evidence and at two points in the draft had copied, into spaces left for factual material, part of my own short summary of a case Mr Kett had relied on as an example (referred to later in the judgment) rather than the similar summary of the present case and my own summary of the facts in a case (relied on by the Claimant) that I had proposed to refer to in relation to reasonable adjustments for those with mental health problems (that case is also later referred to in the judgment). Again, this was identified by counsel, and I have accepted the proposed corrections.

4. The proposed corrections to the draft judgment were otherwise anodyne, matters of clarification or typographical. Permission to Appeal

5. I do not consider that the matters above give rise to an arguable ground of appeal or having any bearing on the central issue raised by Ground 1, on which the Claimant succeeded, and I therefore refuse permission. Costs

6. The Claimant was the overall winner on the Ground that occupied most of the court’s time. The Claimant nevertheless failed on two of the Grounds advanced and argued before me. That should be reflected in costs, and I make a reduction of 25% in order to do so. END